Tag Archives: Michigan

Post navigation

How would you like to marry a billionaire’s daughter? James Casbolt from Cornwall, England made an internet connection in 2009 with Haley Meijer, daughter of American billionaire, Hank Meijer, owner and CEO of a retail conglomerate with his brother, Doug, consisting of 213 grocery and pharmacy stores, 177 gas stations, and other related businesses, located in Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky, and Wisconsin.

Their attraction was immediate and mutual.

They moved in together in Cornwall and later moved to the state of Michigan, marrying in 2011. Mr. Casbolt enlisted in the US Army and was posted to Texas whereupon he persuaded Haley to send him sexually explicit photos of herself to fend off his loneliness. She in turn made him promise he would never show them to anyone else.

They later had a child together but domestic violence led to their separation and divorce. James Casbolt was bitter and angry with the demise of his marriage and began a campaign of threats and abuse, writing

“If you are living with another guy, you just gave him a death sentence”.

He also threatened to send suicide bombers to her parents’ home and demanded a large sum of money saying “If my terms are not met, I can tickle the public interest for years, until the Meijers are so infamous in the world they will not be able to walk down the streets safely.”

But he had already released some photos on Facebook, many of them photo-shopped to look seedier than they were.

Casbolt, now living in the UK, also told his ex-wife that he would dedicate the rest of his life to destroying her, that his efforts would be inexhaustible, and he would continue for years. He sent her photos with images of him wielding a sword and a gun. He threatened: “Your dad could be lynched in the street” and sent an email that read:“[£]2M. Put in my bank account. I will then stop talking about the Meijer family.”

In a trial this week in England James Casbolt was sentenced to 12 years in prison.

“You systematically set out to destroy her reputation. Thousands of people with gullible minds saw the photos and doubtless believed the horrible lies you wrote.”

In yesterday’s post I described the court hearing in Michigan that led Judge Gorcyca to send three children, ages 15, 10 and 9 to Mandy’s Place, a juvenile detention centre for children under 18.

Many people expressed outrage at her decision. Comments from American lawyers writing in the American Bar Association Journal ran at about 99% against. A few examples:

“Really. Sending kids to jail. This judge has no judgment. She should be removed from office. Clearly she is power mad.”

“If we saw this case on some TV lawyer show, no one would believe it. Yet here it is, in all it’s pathetic grandeur.”

“In loco parentis, with the emphasis on “loco.”

“It is painfully clear these children have already been destroyed. I am often skeptical about parental alienation syndrome even being a thing (and I do
matrimonial law) but this transcript proved it to me. A kid says they would prefer to go to juvie than to eat lunch in the courthouse cafeteria with his father? That is just appalling. And bespeaks some nasty business by mom-who also apparently went off on the judge personally in the past. This is not the insanity it reads like, I’m afraid. There is a back story and it’s ugly.”

The Michigan media later reported that the children spent two weeks at Mandy’s Place, a facility they had been ordered by Judge Gorcyca to tour earlier in March of 2015, an indication that she had the juvie hall in mind months before she made the order. The facility later reported that the children had settled in and were making friends, although they had been kept apart from one another, until their unexpected release earlier this month.

The children’s father and the court appointed guardian ad litem jointly applied for an order that the children be released from Mandy’s Place and be sent to a Jewish summer camp with the costs to be divided equally between the parents.

Judge Gorcyca, previously a prosecutor, granted the order saying:

“While this court’s remedy in this particular situation may seem drastic and offensive, so too, is the notion … that the only way to maintain a stable and loving connection with the mother is to vilify and reject the father.”

While Judge Gorcyca’s initial order may have been draconian, my twenty-seven years of experience provides me with a perspective that is less critical and more understanding of the judge’s dilemma.

Mrs. Tsimhoni knew that in the absence of a genuine attempt at reunification between the children and their father, their removal from her custody was inevitable. She and the children toured the Children’s Village three months earlier.

However, it would have been difficult, nearly impossible, to
order a change in custody in the circumstances presented. Mr. Tsimhoni had returned to live in Israel with his new wife and child. The prospect of allowing the children’s mother to continue to “brainwash” them was intolerable. I have no doubt that Judge Gorcyca had considered many other options before choosing the Children’s Village.

The mother had so empowered her children that even she could not obtain their cooperation to speak to or have lunch with their father. In my view, because of her self-centered need to obtain revenge against her ex-husband she turned three innocent young children into victims, and she alone is to blame for their predicament.

Typically in these cases, the children are ordered to live with their grandparents or other relatives who will adhere to a court order that the mother not be permitted any contact with the children. In the Tsimhoni case, the immediate family lived in Israel, including both sets of grandparents.

I recall a case of mine many years ago where two young boys were taken by their mother to Germany on the pretence of a holiday. They didn’t return, leaving a devastated father in Vancouver. His court applications in Germany were of no assistance in recovering his children.

Over the years the eldest boy begged his mother to allow him to visit his father, but she refused. Finally, when he turned twelve-years old she consented and he flew on his own to visit his father for two weeks.

At the conclusion of the holiday, I received a phone call from the father. His son was refusing to fly back to Germany. I told him that he had no choice but to take his son to the airport and see that he got on the plane.

Father and son arrived at the British Airways counter and the check-in process began, but suddenly the young boy started emptying his suitcases, throwing the clothes on the floor, and yelling that he would not board the plane.

His actions so distressed the clerks at the counter they called the captain of the 747 to come and speak to the boy. The pilot’s overture was of no use, as the boy still would not budge. With that, the captain advised my client that he would not allow his son to board the aeroplane for safety reasons. The boy remained with his father and a custody order was obtained in British Columbia.

But that was not the end. Two summers later I received a phone call from my client who advised his younger son, now approaching twelve-years old, had surreptitiously left Germany and showed up on his doorstep in Vancouver. His mother in Germany was frantic, as he left under cover of night and she had no idea where he was. He too escaped the clutches of the mother who had abducted him years before, and remained in Vancouver.

A dynamic in my client’s case and in the Tsimhoni case is that the younger child or children will often follow the older sibling, which is exactly what occurred in Judge Gorcyca’s courtroom.

So what is a judge to do? In certain jurisdictions reunification programs have been established for children who have, for no legitimate reason, refused to see a parent. In British Columbia, parental alienation expert, Dr. Katherine Reay runs “Family Reflections”, a residential program where children receive intensive therapy over a prolonged period of time. She reports a significant success rate.

As for those who still insist that parental alienation is a pseudo-syndrome that doesn’t really exist, I have seen it with my own eyes for many decades, as have hundreds of other lawyers and psychologists across North America. It is one of the most insidious forms of child abuse, rivalling the inexplicable tactic of falsely alleging a parent has sexually abused his or her children.

Michigan’s District Court Judge Ken Post is at it again. You may remember him as the judge who found junior lawyer, Scott Millard, in contempt for protecting his client’s right not to incriminate himself. Millard became a folk-hero of sorts for standing up to Judge Post, even as the judge directed the court sheriff to remove him from the court and escort him to the cells. Judge Post was later disciplined and suspended from the bench for thirty days.

Judge Post’s latest stunt occurred when Philip Mallery, age 23, failed to appear for his scheduled court hearing on drug and traffic charges, although his lawyer was in attendance.

Judge Post telephoned the young man and left the following message:

“We’re waiting for you because you’re supposed to be here today, you missed a drug test yesterday, and it would appear as though you’re not coming today, so a bench warrant is being issued for your arrest. My strong suggestion is that you, uhhh, when you get this message you keep going because if I find you, it will not be pleasant. Have a good day.”

Mallery’s lawyer, Joshua Blanchard, whose law partner, Scott Millard ended up in jail, has now applied to have Judge Post recuse himself from his client’s case and has reported him to the Judicial Tenure Commission. Blanchard described Judge Post’s telephone call as “threatening” and queried why the jurist would take the action he did without knowing the reason for Mallery’s absence, speculating that his client could have been ill, in a traffic accident, or his wife could have died.

I’m looking forward to hearing Judge Post explain why he thought it appropriate to call an accused, rather than relaying a message through his lawyer, which is the usual practice.

However, Judge Post’s behaviour is trifling compared to the charges against Kentucky Circuit Court Judge Steven Combs, who was suspended last week pending a decision from the Judicial Conduct Commission.

The allegations include:

1. Presiding over a gas and oil case despite his personal financial interest in the company and using information elicited in the case to make personal demands to the company;

2. Making numerous aggressive calls to the local police insisting they lay criminal trespass charges against members of the public who parked in his church’s parking lot;

3. During one of the phone calls to police, he allegedly said the next police officer who pulled him over would get a “bullet to the head.” When confronted with the statement, he allegedly said, “I’m elected by the people and not pieces of trash like you.” He also called the police department “a bunch of thieves”;

5. Using court letterhead to send personal letters to county officials;

6. Calling a lawyer who appeared before him “a prick and a coward”;and

7. Soliciting donations from lawyers who appeared in his courtroom for a local high school golf team.

My research indicates that American judges fall afoul of judicial ethics rules much more frequently than Canadian judges, a phenomenon probably related to the absence of elected judges in Canada.

In many American states, like Michigan and Kentucky, judges are democratically elected and accountable to voters, however, the election of judges is also subject to the “tyranny of the majority” and is open to corruption and the purchase of votes.

Life isn’t always fair, but Carnell Alexander expected that a judge in Michigan would right the wrong. As he described it:

“How can you start a case with a lie? The mom lied. The process server lied. Now I have to pay for it.”

In 1987 a young woman gave birth to a child. In order to get welfare funds from the government she was obliged to fill out a form indicating who the father of her child was. She named Carnell Alexander as her child’s father.

She then filed a court action alleging he was the father and sought child support.

A process server was hired to personally deliver the court documents to him, as was required by law.

A court hearing took place but Carnell Alexander wasn’t there. He was in jail serving time for a juvenile offence.

Later in the early 90’s Carnell was checked in a routine traffic stop and advised there was a warrant for his arrest. The police officer told him he was a “deadbeat dad”.

You can imagine his surprise…he had never received notice of the paternity hearing as he was behind bars at the time, and he swore he had no children.

He began searching for the woman who had named him as father so he could prove he was not, through DNA testing, but his efforts failed until 2013 when a paternity test was administered.

With his grade 8 education and no assets or income, he could not afford a lawyer, but each occasion he went to court he repeated the refrain that he was not the child’s father.

But the government wanted him to pay arrears of child support of $30,000, so he showed up in court on his own expecting that justice would prevail. Boy, was he wrong!

Judge Kathleen McCarthy said she was “outraged that Mr. Alexander for two and a half decades failed to take this matter seriously.”

She said that Mr. Alexander should have filed documents protesting paternity years ago and because he did not, he must pay the support.

Yes, even though he had no notice, was not the father, and the child’s biological father was in his life, he must pay.

Feeling helpless, Mr. Alexander went to Michigan radio station WXYZ who broadcast his story.

And yes, Judge McCarthy was outraged about that too saying:

“I am outraged at the media for the willful misrepresentations of the facts of this case. Casting this court in a negative light.”

Due to the media exposure Carnell Alexander now has a pro bono lawyer, Cherika Harris, who has vowed to continue the fight for him.

As for Judge McCarthy, it is not the radio station that has cast a negative light on her court. She did that all on her own.

Apparently “divorce trolling” has gotten so bad in the State of Michigan that a new law has been proposed to outlaw the practice, a bill sponsored by Michigan Republican Senator Rick Jones.

You ask “what is divorce trolling?” Good question. According to Senator Jones:

“When a woman is a victim of domestic violence and decides to file for divorce from her abusive husband, she should not have to worry about a trolling attorney tipping off her husband before she has time to protect herself and the children by taking actions like moving into a shelter house or getting a personal protection order.”

The proposed law will make it unlawful for a person to intentionally contact an individual that the person knows to be a party to a divorce action filed with a court, or an immediate family member of that individual with a direct solicitation to provide a legal service until the expiration of 14 days after the date the proof of service is filed with the Court.

A first violation of this law is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, but if you get caught a second time or more, you’re looking at possible imprisonment and a fine of not more than $5,000.

I can only guess that divorce lawyers in Michigan are desperately in search of clients. Here in Vancouver it takes weeks to get an appointment with a top lawyer and even then, they may not want your case.

The good senator, a former sheriff, wants to make sure that women and children who flee a violent relationship aren’t further bugged by lawyers during this emotional time. Hard to believe that legislators in Michigan have nothing better to do than enact unenforceable laws.

I can picture it now…a sleazy lawyer lounging in a criminal courtroom, jotting down names of domestic violence victims so he/she can run to a telephone to offer legal services to their spouse? Ya think?

If you were the payor father in a child support hearing and you learned that the judge presiding over your case was having an affair with your child’s mother, how angry would you be? How about if you read an email from the judge to your ex, agreeing with her suggestion that you be sent to jail because you’re in arrears of child support?

“I figure if he hasn’t come current by his court date, he gets jail to pay. If he says he can’t bring me the $$, I’ll put him on a tether (electric monitoring) til he brings the receipt…or do “double time”.

You might think this kind of corruption comes from a judge in Russia or Zimbabwe, but you’d be wrong. Judge Wade McCree was, until recently, a judge in Wayne County Michigan, home to two million people, best known for Motown and Motor City, and of late, the 18 billion dollar debt and subsequent bankruptcy of the City of Detroit.

Judge McCree’s judicial career ended ignominiously this Spring when Michigan’s Supreme Court suspended him for six years, after finding his conduct affected not only the litigants involved, but harmed the integrity of the judicial system as a whole.

Initially Judge McCree pulled a “Weiner” by texting a partially nude photo of himself to a female deputy sheriff, and was under investigation by the Judicial Tenure Commission. Rather than minding his “p’s and q’s” while under scrutiny for that indiscretion, he began an affair with Geniene LaShay Mott, who was the complaining party in People v. King, a court proceeding involving the enforcement and collection of arrears of child support against Robert King, who was the father of one of Ms. Mott’s children. He was in arrears of support in the amount of $15,000.

Judge McCree’s offences included:

1. Conducting an affair with Ms. Mott while he was presiding over her child support hearing;
2. Engaging in sexual relations with Ms. Mott in his judicial chambers;
3. Allowing Ms. Mott to access the court house through a rear, private door and utilize the judicial parking lot;
4. Surreptitiously arranging for Ms. Mott’s cell phone to be delivered to her in court by a sheriff so she could call him during the hearing;
5. Texting Ms. Mott from the bench while presiding over other cases;
6. Accepting Ms. Mott’s suggestions as to how he should deal with her child’s father;
7. Giving money to Ms. Mott, as much as $6,000;
8. Lying to the Judicial Commission concerning the date that he ended his affair with Ms. Mott;

But there was even more. Judge McCree presided over People v. Tillman, reducing Mr. Tillman’s bond in another child support case. Tillman was a relative of Ms. Mott’s, a fact known to McCree. And when his affair with Ms. Mott cooled down he lodged a complaint with Wayne County’s Prosecuting Attorney, alleging that Ms. Mott was stalking him and extorting him by demanding $10,000 in exchange for terminating her pregnancy and not revealing the affair and pregnancy to Judge McCree’s wife. In fact, the alleged crimes never occurred.

While Judge McCree’s attorney argued “no harm, no foul”, the judicial panel, comprised of seven judges, disagreed, saying the judge was well aware that his conduct was egregiously inappropriate as evidenced by an email he sent to Ms. Mott:

“Second, you are the complaining witness on a case that is before me. Naturally if it got out that we were seeing each other before your baby daddy’s case closed, everybody would be in deep shit”.

As for the aggrieved Mr. King, he filed a lawsuit against Judge McCree alleging constitutional violations, including the right to equal protection under the law and the right to be treated fairly in legal processes. District Court Judge Avern Cohn ruled against Mr. King finding that Judge McCree’s decisions in King’s case were “judicial acts” covered by “judicial immunity”, a protection that applies even if a judge’s actions are negligent, incompetent, or malicious.

Jerry Rosenberg holds the record for the longest incarcerated inmate in the State of New York. He is also the first New York inmate to earn a law degree in prison.

Rosenberg spent 46 years in prison before he died in 2009 of natural causes. After his conviction for the murders of two police officers in New York, he had an appointment with the warden of Attica Prison to die in the electric chair.

He escaped death, however, when he discovered a legal loophole that compelled Governor Nelson Rockefeller to commute his sentence to life in prison. The law in New York State had recently been amended in the first moves towards the abolition of the death penalty.

Within four years of his imprisonment he attained a law degree from Blackstone School of Law, an accredited correspondence law program founded in 1890 in Detroit, Michigan. He was, of course, never admitted to the bar as a practicing lawyer, but that did not get in his way.

During the Attica prison riot of 1971, Rosenberg tried to restore peace and became chief legal advisor to the leaders of the uprising, which took 43 lives, including ten prison guards.

He also worked with famed lawyer civil rights lawyers William Kunstler and his partner Ron Kuby in defence of several Attica inmates charged with murder.

After the riots he was transferred to Sing Sing Prison, thirty miles from New York City, where he assisted thousands of inmates with their post-trial appeals and motions, often focusing on errors made by incompetent or indifferent trial counsel. He frequently succeeded in sentence appeal applications, with reductions from 3 to 10 years.

After the prison upheavals of the 70′s, Rosenberg was able to convince the authorities to establish small law libraries in prisons and thereafter, he operated as a law professor teaching inmates to learn the law for themselves. He encouraged inmates to use their “minds and words” and not bullets.

In 1981 Rosenberg was the first inmate allowed to formally act as counsel in court during a fellow-inmate’s court hearing. He appeared before Judge Albert Rosenblatt, who later became a jurist on the Court of Appeal of New York.

He was not able to free himself though, and was never granted parole, despite his applications every two years.

Jerry Rosenberg stole the lives of two fathers, husbands, and brothers when he committed double murder. Lawyer William Kunstler once remarked: “But for a cruel twist of fate, Jerry might well have become one of the country’s foremost criminal lawyers”.

In my view he did not fall victim to fate, he created the circumstances that suppressed his enormous potential. However, at the end of his life, there was no question that he contributed to the betterment of the lives of inmates across the United States.